|
|---|
|
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Tennessee; Basic Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Publication: Federal Register Agency: Environmental Protection Agency Byline: Patrick M. Tobin Date: 28 July 1995 Subject: American Government  • The Environment
|
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 145 (Friday, July 28, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38694-38700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18511]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TN131-1-6794a; TN136-1-6795a; TN137-1-6796a; FRL-5257-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Tennessee; Basic Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving three state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted on March 17, July 8 and July 13, 1994, by the State
of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Division. The
revisions submitted March 17, 1994, modify the existing basic motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in Davidson County to
meet the requirements of the EPA I/M regulations, as published on
November 5, 1992. The revisions submitted on July 8 and July 13, 1994,
establish and require the implementation of a basic I/M program in the
four middle Tennessee counties of Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and
Wilson. These counties, along with Davidson County, form the Nashville
ozone nonattainment area. The regulations establishing the I/M program
constituted the July 8, 1994, submittal while the nonregulatory
components of the program were discussed in the July 13, 1994,
submittal.
DATES: This final rule will be effective September 26, 1995 unless
adverse or critical comments are received by August 28, 1995. If the
effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Dale
Aspy at the EPA Regional office listed below.
Copies of the documents relative to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the following
locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24
hours before the visiting day.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket), U.S.
[[Page 38695]]
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Programs Branch, 345
Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Air Pollution Control Division, Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conversation, 9th Floor, L & C Annex, 401 Church Street, Nashville,
Tennessee 37243-1531.
Bureau of Environmental Health Services, Nashville and Davidson County
Metropolitan Health Department, 311 23rd Street, North, Nashville,
Tennessee 37203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale Aspy, Mobile Source Planning
Unit, Regulatory Planning and Development Section, Air Programs Branch,
Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
The telephone number is 404/347-3555, extension 4214. Reference files
TN131, TN136 and TN137.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act) requires that most
ozone nonattainment areas adopt either ``basic'' or ``enhanced'' I/M
programs, depending on the severity of the problem and the population
of the area. The moderate ozone nonattainment areas, plus marginal
ozone areas with existing or previously required I/M programs, fall
under the ``basic'' I/M requirements. Enhanced programs are required in
serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas with 1980
urbanized populations of 200,000 or more.
The Act requires states to make changes to improve existing I/M
programs or to implement new ones for certain nonattainment areas.
Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act directed EPA to publish updated
guidance for state I/M programs, taking into consideration findings of
the Administrator's audits and investigations of these programs. The
Act further requires each area required to have an I/M program to
incorporate this guidance into the SIP. Based on these requirements,
EPA promulgated I/M regulations on November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950,
codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.350-51.373).
The I/M regulation establishes minimum performance standards for
basic I/M programs as well as requirements for the following: network
type and program evaluation; adequate tools and resources; test
frequency and convenience; vehicle coverage; test procedures and
standards; test equipment; quality control; waivers and compliance via
diagnostic inspection; motorist compliance enforcement; motorist
compliance enforcement program oversight; quality assurance;
enforcement against contractors, stations and inspectors; data
collection; data analysis and reporting; inspector training and
licensing or certification; public information and consumer protection;
improving repair effectiveness; compliance with recall notices; on-road
testing; SIP revisions; and implementation deadlines. The performance
standard for basic I/M programs remains the same as it has been since
initial I/M policy was established in 1978, pursuant to the 1977
amendments to the Clean Air Act.
The State of Tennessee contains the Nashville urbanized area which
is designated as moderate nonattainment for ozone. Section 51.372(b)(2)
of the federal I/M regulation (codified at 40 CFR Part 51.372(b)(2))
required affected states to submit full I/M SIP revisions that met the
requirements of the Act to EPA by November 15, 1993.
On March 17, 1994, the Davidson County Health Department, through
the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Division (APCD), submitted a SIP
revision addressing required changes to the existing I/M program in
Davidson County. The major changes made to the Davidson County I/M
program were the elimination of the exemption for vehicles over 12
model years old and the addition of a three point anti-tampering
program. The proposed amendments will include a visual check for
catalytic converters, gasoline fuel inlet restrictors and fuel filler
caps, and the requirement that all vehicles manufactured in model year
1975 or newer be tested as a condition of renewing registration.
On July 8 and July 13, 1994, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee APCD, submitted to EPA SIP revisions for a basic I/M program
for the four counties surrounding Davidson County. The counties of
Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson constitute the remainder of
the Nashville ozone nonattainment area. An I/M program was required to
be implemented in the urbanized area, which includes a portion of these
counties by the I/M applicability requirements which were revised in 40
CFR Part 51.350 on November 5, 1992. The first submittal was for the
purpose of adding Chapter 1200-3-29, Light Duty Motor Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance, of the Tennessee Air Regulation to the
Tennessee SIP. The second submission was made to add all required
nonregulatory elements of the I/M program to the SIP. The I/M
regulations were approved by the Tennessee Air Pollution Board on
September 8, 1993, and became state effective on June 29, 1994.
Mandatory vehicle testing in the four counties of Rutherford, Sumner,
Williamson, and Wilson began on December 1, 1994. EPA summarizes the
requirements of the federal I/M regulations as found in 40 CFR Part
51.350-51.373 and its analysis of the state submittal below. Parties
desiring additional details on the federal I/M regulation are referred
to the November 5, 1992, Federal Register notice (57 FR 52950) or 40
CFR Part 51.350-51.373.
II. EPA's Analysis of Middle Tennessee Basic I/M Program
As discussed above, section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act requires that
states adopt and implement updated regulations for I/M programs in
moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas. The following sections of
this notice summarize the requirements of the federal I/M regulations
and address whether the elements of the State's submittal comply with
the federal rule.
Applicability--40 CFR 51.350
Section 182(b)(4) of the Act and 40 CFR 51.350(a)(4) require that
any area classified as moderate ozone nonattainment and not required to
implement enhanced I/M under 40 CFR 51.350(a)(1) shall implement basic
I/M in the 1990 Census-defined urbanized nonattainment area. The
urbanized portion of the Nashville nonattainment area contains Davidson
County, and sections of Rutherford County, Sumner County, Williamson
County, and Wilson County. Davidson County has operated an I/M program
since 1985 and submitted on March 17, 1994, through the Tennessee APCD,
the required revisions to that program. An analysis of the urbanized
area utilizing the revised provisions of this section, identified the
need to expand the current, Davidson County only program, to include
the remainder of the nonattainment area. The program boundaries
described in the Tennessee submittal meet the federal I/M requirements
under section 51.350 and are approvable.
The federal I/M regulation requires that the state program shall
not lapse prior to the time it is no longer needed. EPA believes that a
program that does not lapse prior to the attainment deadline for each
applicable area would meet this requirement. The attainment
[[Page 38696]]
date for the Nashville ozone nonattainment area is November 15, 1996,
and the I/M regulations contained in the Tennessee submittal does not
establish an I/M program implementation sunset date prior to the
attainment deadline.
Basic I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR 51.352
The basic I/M program must be designed and implemented to meet or
exceed a minimum performance standard, which is expressed as emission
levels in area-wide average grams per mile (gpm) for certain
pollutants. The performance standard shall be established using local
characteristics, such as vehicle mix and local fuel controls, and the
following model I/M program parameters: network type, start date, test
frequency, model year coverage, vehicle type coverage, exhaust emission
test type, emission standards, emission control device, evaporative
system function checks, stringency, waiver rate, compliance rate and
evaluation date. The emission levels achieved by the state's program
design shall be calculated using the most current version, at the time
of submittal, of the EPA mobile source emission factor model. At the
time of the Tennessee submittal the most current version was MOBILE5a.
Areas shall meet or exceed the performance standard for the pollutants
which cause them to be subject to basic I/M requirements. In the case
of ozone nonattainment areas, the performance standard must be met for
both NOX and VOCs.
The Tennessee submittal for the Davidson County I/M program
includes the following program design parameters:
network type--centralized, test-only
start date--1985
test frequency--annual
model year coverage--1975 and later
vehicle type coverage--light gasoline powered vehicles
emission test--Idle
emission standards--1.2% CO, 220 ppm HC
emission control device--Catalytic converter, gas cap, fuel inlet
restrictor
stringency (pre-1981 failure rate)--20%
waiver rate (pre-81/81 and newer)--0%/0%
compliance rate--98%
evaluation date(s)--January 1, 1997
The Tennessee submittal for the four additional counties includes
the following program design parameters:
network type--centralized, test-only
start date--1995
test frequency--annual
model year coverage--1975 and later
vehicle type coverage--light gasoline powered vehicles
emission test--Idle
emission standards--1.2% CO, 220 ppm HC
emission control device--Catalytic converter, gas cap, fuel inlet
restrictor
stringency (pre-1981 failure rate)--20%
waiver rate (pre-81/81 and newer)--0%/0%
compliance rate--98%
evaluation date(s)--January 1, 1997
The Tennessee program design parameters meet the federal I/M
regulations and are approvable.
The emission levels achieved by these programs were modeled using
MOBILE5a. The modeling demonstration was performed correctly, used
local characteristics and demonstrated that the program design will
exceed the minimum basic I/M performance standard, expressed in gpm,
for VOCs and NOX for each milestone and for the attainment
deadline. The modeling demonstration is approvable.
Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR 51.353
Basic I/M programs can be operated in a centralized test-only
format, in a decentralized test and repair, or in any hybrid version as
long as the state can demonstrate that the selected program is
effective in achieving the basic I/M performance standard. The
Tennessee APCD will administer a centralized I/M program in the four
counties previously identified while the Davidson County Health
Department will continue to administer the centralized I/M program in
that county. The enhanced program evaluation requirements of this
section do not pertain to the Tennessee program as it is a basic I/M
program. The network type is approvable.
Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR 51.354
The federal regulation requires the state to demonstrate that
adequate funding of the program is available. A portion of the test fee
or separately assessed per vehicle fee shall be collected, placed in a
dedicated fund and used to finance the program. Alternative funding
approaches are acceptable if demonstrated that the funding can be
maintained. Reliance on funding from the state or local General Fund is
not acceptable unless doing otherwise would be a violation of the
state's constitution. The SIP shall include a detailed budget plan
which describes the source of funds for personnel, program
administration, program enforcement, and purchase of equipment. The SIP
shall also detail the number of personnel dedicated to the quality
assurance program, data analysis, program administration, enforcement,
public education and assistance and other necessary functions.
The Tennessee program is to be funded by direct reimbursement of
the primary contractor from vehicle inspection fees. A portion of the
vehicle inspection fee will be returned to APCD to cover the cost of
program oversight and will be sufficient to cover the program related
activities. This method meets the federal regulation and is approvable.
The submittal demonstrates that sufficient funds, equipment and
personnel have been appropriated to meet program operation
requirements. The Tennessee submittal meets the adequate tools and
resources requirements set forth in the federal I/M regulations.
Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR 51.355
The SIP shall describe the test year selection scheme, how the test
frequency is integrated into the enforcement process and shall include
the legal authority, regulations or contract provisions to implement
and enforce the test frequency. The program shall be designed to
provide convenient service to the motorist by ensuring short wait
times, short driving distances and regular testing hours.
The Tennessee and Davidson County I/M regulations provide for an
annual test frequency for all covered vehicles. A vehicle is assigned a
registration month. The vehicle owner must present a valid, passing,
emission certificate in order to renew the registration of the vehicle.
The emission certificate is valid for 90 days after the test. The
program contractor notifies the vehicle owner when their vehicles may
be tested. The program also defines acceptable wait times in the
contract. Waiting times shall not exceed a daily average of 15 minutes
for more than five consecutive days. If this time is exceeded, the
state can require additional lanes to be opened. The submittal meets
the requirements for testing frequency and convenience.
Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR 51.356
The performance standard for basic I/M programs assumes coverage of
all 1968 and later model year light duty vehicles (LDV) and light duty
trucks (LDT) up to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), and
includes vehicles operating on all fuel types. Other levels of coverage
may be approved if the necessary emission reductions are achieved.
Vehicles registered or required to be registered within the I/M program
area boundaries and fleets primarily operated within the I/M program
area boundaries and
[[Page 38697]]
belonging to the covered model years and vehicle classes comprise the
subject vehicles. Fleets may be officially inspected outside of the
normal I/M program test facilities, if such alternatives are approved
by the program administration, but shall be subject to the same test
requirements using the same quality control standards as non-fleet
vehicles and shall be inspected in independent, test-only facilities,
according to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51.353(a). Vehicles which
are operated on federal installations located within an I/M program
area shall be tested, regardless of whether the vehicles are registered
in the state or local I/M area.
The federal I/M regulation requires that the SIP shall include the
legal authority or rule necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle
coverage requirement, a detailed description of the number and types of
vehicles to be covered by the program and a plan for how those vehicles
are to be identified including vehicles that are routinely operated in
the area but may not be registered in the area, and a description of
any special exemptions including the percentage and number of vehicles
to be impacted by the exemption.
The Davidson County and Tennessee I/M regulations require all 1975
and newer model year gasoline powered vehicles up to 8,500 pounds gross
vehicle weight registered in Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson,
and Wilson Counties except motorcycles, and vehicles which the APCD
Administrator has determined shall not be tested because of fuel or
engine characteristics, to be tested annually. This includes light duty
vehicles and light duty trucks up to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight
rating. The SIP submittals contain a listing of the number of subject
vehicles in each county. Quality control requirements apply equally to
both the centralized testing stations and the fleet self testers.
Federally owned vehicles are subject to the testing requirements.
Vehicles from other areas may be tested. Owners of subject vehicles
that will be outside of the test area during the assigned test period
may request an extension. However, they must submit the vehicle for an
emission test upon return to the area.
The State's plan for testing fleet vehicles is acceptable and meets
the requirements of the federal I/M regulation.
Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR 51.357
Written test procedures and pass/fail standards shall be
established and followed for each model year and vehicle type included
in the program. Test procedures and standards are detailed in 40 CFR
Part 51.357 and in the EPA document entitled ``Recommended I/M Short
Test Procedures For the 1990's: Six Alternatives.''
The Tennessee I/M submittals include a description of the test
procedure used in the Tennessee I/M program. The program contract
requires an idle test procedure to be utilized. This procedure is an
EPA short test procedure. A vehicle failing the initial test is
preconditioned at 2500 revolutions per minute for about 25-30 seconds
and retested at idle. These test procedures conform to EPA approved
test procedures and are approvable. The State I/M regulation
establishes hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) pass/fail exhaust
standards for all test procedures for each applicable model year and
vehicle type. The exhaust standards adopted by the state conform to EPA
established standards and are approvable.
Test Equipment--40 CFR 51.358
Computerized test systems are required for performing any
measurement on subject vehicles. The federal I/M regulation requires
that the state SIP submittal include written technical specifications
for all test equipment used in the program. The specifications shall
describe the emission analysis process, the necessary test equipment,
the required features, and written acceptance testing criteria and
procedures.
The Davidson County and Tennessee I/M contracts require exhaust
analyzers that meet the BAR90 performance specifications. These
specifications require the use of computerized test systems. The
specifications also include performance features and functional
characteristics of the computerized test systems which meet the federal
I/M regulations and are approvable.
Quality Control--40 CFR 51.359
Quality control measures shall insure that emission measurement
equipment is calibrated and maintained properly, and that inspection,
calibration records, and control charts are accurately created,
recorded and maintained.
Section 8 of the contract and section 8 of the Tennessee APCD
portion of the SIP submittal discuss quality control and assurance. The
Davidson County contract also discusses these items. These portions of
the submittal include the quality control requirements for the emission
measurement equipment, record keeping requirements and measures to
maintain the security of all documents used to establish compliance
with the inspection requirements. This portion of the Tennessee
submittal complies with the quality control requirements set forth in
the federal I/M regulation and is approvable.
Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR 51.360
The federal I/M regulation allows for the issuance of a waiver,
which is a form of compliance with the program requirements that allows
a motorist to comply without meeting the applicable test standards.
The Davidson County and Tennessee regulations do not provide for
waivers. These provisions meet the federal I/M regulations requirements
and are approvable.
Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR 51.361
The federal regulation requires that compliance shall be ensured
through the denial of motor vehicle registration in I/M programs.
However, a basic area may use an alternative enforcement mechanism if
it demonstrates that the alternative will be as effective as
registration denial. The SIP shall provide information concerning the
enforcement process, legal authority to implement and enforce the
program, a commitment to a compliance rate to be used for modeling
purposes and to be maintained in practice.
The Davidson County and Tennessee I/M regulations provide the legal
authority to implement a registration denial enforcement mechanism. The
County Clerk's office can not issue a registration renewal without a
passing emission test. Section 9 of the Tennessee APCD SIP submittal
and Appendix 1 of the Davidson County SIP submittal discuss penalties
to vehicle owners not complying with the requirement. The Davidson
County Health Department and APCD will conduct reviews in their
respective program areas of the Clerk's office registration to insure
the regulation is enforced. The SIP contains a commitment to maintain
the modeled compliance rate in practice. This portion of the Tennessee
submittal meets the federal requirements and is approvable.
[[Page 38698]]
Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR 51.362
The federal I/M regulation requires that the enforcement program
shall be audited regularly and shall follow effective program
management practices, including adjustments to improve operation when
necessary. The SIP shall include quality control and quality assurance
procedures to be used to insure the effective overall performance of
the enforcement system. An information management system shall be
established which will characterize, evaluate and enforce the program.
The Davidson County and Tennessee I/M regulations provide the legal
authority to implement a registration denial enforcement system. The
Davidson County Health Department and Tennessee APCD will audit the
County Clerk's Office to insure the regulation is enforced. This
portion of the Tennessee submittal meets the federal requirements and
is approvable.
Quality Assurance--40 CFR 51.363
An ongoing quality assurance program shall be implemented to
discover, correct and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in the program.
The program shall include covert and overt performance audits of the
inspectors, audits of station and inspector records, equipment audits,
and formal training of all state I/M enforcement officials and
auditors. A description of the quality assurance program which includes
written procedure manuals on the above discussed items must be
submitted as part of the SIP.
The Tennessee submittal includes a quality assurance program which
describes details and procedures for implementing inspector, records,
and equipment audits. Performance audits of inspectors and testing
equipment will be performed by Davidson County Health Department and
APCD personnel in their respective jurisdictions. Section 8 of the
Tennessee APCD contract addresses quality assurance requirements.
Section 8 of the Tennessee APCD SIP submittal addresses quality
assurance procedures as well. Appendices 1 and 7 of the Davidson County
submittal discuss these items as well. In both cases, overt and covert
audits and remote observation of inspection personnel performing
testing are included. Overt audits may be performed by Davidson County
Health Department and APCD personnel at any time, unannounced, during
station operation. Covert audits are required to use a range of
vehicles which have been set to fail the inspection test. The quality
assurance requirements and procedures in the Tennessee I/M program meet
the federal I/M regulation requirements and are approvable.
Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR 51.364
Enforcement against licensed stations or contractors, and
inspectors shall include swift, sure, effective, and consistent
penalties for violation of program requirements. The federal I/M
regulation requires the establishment of minimum penalties for
violations of program rules and procedures which can be imposed against
stations, contractors and inspectors. The legal authority for
establishing and imposing penalties, civil fines, license suspensions
and revocations must be included in the SIP. State quality assurance
officials shall have the authority to temporarily suspend station and/
or inspector licenses immediately upon finding a violation that
directly affects emission reduction benefits. An official opinion
explaining any state constitutional impediments to immediate suspension
authority must be included in the submittal. The SIP shall describe the
administrative and judicial procedures and responsibilities relevant to
the enforcement process, including which agencies, courts and
jurisdictions are involved, who will prosecute and adjudicate cases and
the resources and sources of those resources which will support this
function.
The Tennessee submittal includes the legal authority to establish
and impose penalties against stations, contractors and inspectors.
Section 9 of the Tennessee APCD SIP submittal states that civil
penalties of up to $25,000 per day can be imposed for violations.
Appendix 4 of the Davidson County submittal discusses this issue in
that county's program. In both programs, the program auditors also have
the ability to immediately shut down any testing lane they find not to
be in compliance. The testing lane will remain out of operation until
the necessary corrective action has been taken and a followup audit
confirms the lane is operating properly. Per contract agreements with
the system contractor and the State of Tennessee, the contractor is
required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and county
regulations. The contractor has to post a performance bond to help
insure program operations comply with all regulations. The Tennessee I/
M enforcement program can suspend and/or revoke fleet inspection
licenses for violations. Inspectors may be decertified. The Tennessee
I/M program meets the requirements of this section and is approvable.
Data Collection--40 CFR 51.365
Accurate data collection is essential to the management, evaluation
and enforcement of an I/M program. The federal I/M regulation requires
data to be gathered on each individual test conducted and on the
results of the quality control checks of test equipment required under
40 CFR Part 51.359.
Section 10 of the Tennessee SIP submittal specifies the information
contained on the inspection form. Appendix 4, the contract, of the
Davidson County submittal, contains the specifications for equipment
and data. The contract, in section 12 of the Tennessee APCD submittal,
requires the contractor to work with Davidson County and the State in
the development of the test forms and the associated data fields. Data
requirements are also specified in the covert and overt audit section
of the Procedures and Policies section of the SIP. The type of test
data collected meets the federal I/M regulation requirements and is
approvable. The submittal also commits to gather and report the results
of the quality control checks required under 40 CFR Part 51.359 and is
approvable.
Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR 51.366
Data analysis and reporting are required to allow for monitoring
and evaluation of the program by the state and EPA. The federal I/M
regulation requires annual reports to be submitted which provide
information and statistics and summarize activities performed for each
of the following programs: testing, quality assurance, quality control
and enforcement. These reports are to be submitted by July and shall
provide statistics for the period of January to December of the
previous year. A biennial report shall be submitted to EPA which
addresses changes in program design, regulations, legal authority,
program procedures and any weaknesses in the program found during the
two year period and how these problems will be or were corrected.
The Tennessee I/M program SIP provides for the analysis and
reporting of data for the testing program, quality assurance program,
quality control program and the enforcement program. The type of data
to be analyzed and reported meets the federal I/M regulation
requirements and is approvable. Tennessee commits to submit annual
reports on these programs to EPA by July of the
[[Page 38699]]
subsequent year. These annual reports will be submitted July 1, 1996,
and each July 1 thereafter, covering the previous test year. Biennial
reports will be submitted to discuss any changes in program design and
procedures, and the appropriate corrective action taken.
Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR 51.376
The federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally
trained and licensed or certified to perform inspections.
Both the Tennessee regulations and the contract require all
inspectors to receive formal training, be licensed by the Davidson
County Health Department or the APCD and renew the certification every
year. In order to be licensed, the inspector must attend a training
course and pass an examination. Currently, policies are being drafted
by the APCD to officially require a score of at least 80% to pass. The
SIP meets the federal I/M regulation requirements for inspector
training and certification and is approvable.
Public Information and Consumer Protection--40 CFR 51.368
The federal I/M regulation requires the SIP to include public
information and consumer protection programs.
The contracts provided with both SIP submittals include a public
information program which educates the public on I/M, State and federal
regulations, air quality and the role of motor vehicles in the air
pollution problem and other items as described in the federal rule. The
consumer protection program includes provisions for a challenge
mechanism, and providing assistance to motorists in obtaining warranty
covered repairs. Section 11 of the Tennessee APCD SIP submittal and
Appendices 10, 11, and 13 of the Davidson County submittal discusses
the various components of the public information and consumer
protection program that will be implemented as part of the I/M program.
The public information and consumer protection programs contained in
the SIP submittal meet the federal regulations and are approvable.
Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR 51.369
Effective repairs are the key to achieving program goals. The
federal regulation requires states to take steps to ensure that the
capability exists in the repair industry to repair vehicles. The SIP
must include a description of the technical assistance program to be
implemented, and a description of the repair technician training
resources available in the community.
Section 10 of the Tennessee APCD contract contains a provision
identifying the State as being responsible for interfacing with the
repair industry with respect to technical assistance and technician
training. The repair effectiveness program described in the SIP meets
the federal regulation and is approvable.
Compliance With Recall Notices--40 CFR 51.370
The federal regulation requires the states to establish methods to
ensure that vehicles that are subject to enhanced I/M and are included
in an emission related recall receive the required repairs prior to
completing the emission test or renewing the vehicle registration.
The Nashville ozone nonattainment area is classified as moderate
and therefore not subject to this provision.
On-road Testing--40 CFR 51.371
On-road testing is required in enhanced I/M areas.
The Nashville ozone nonattainment area is classified as moderate
and therefore not subject to this provision.
State Implementation Plan Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40 CFR
51.372-373
The federal regulation requires centralized basic I/M programs to
be fully implemented by July 1, 1994. The Davidson County portion of
the Nashville nonattainment area has been in operation since 1985. This
constitutes the largest portion of the vehicles in the area. Testing
began on December 1, 1994 in the four surrounding counties. Although
this testing began several months late, the SIP revision is now
approvable as the program has been implemented in the four additional
counties as required.
On April 1, 1994, the State of Tennessee was notified by EPA of a
failure to submit the I/M plan as required. This action started the
sanctions clock and the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) clocks.
Letters were sent on July 18 and August 2, 1994, notifying the
Tennessee APCD that the submitted middle Tennessee I/M SIP revisions
had been determined to be complete. This action stopped the sanctions
clock. The FIP clock will be stopped by the final approval of this SIP
provision.
EPA's review of the material indicates that the State has adopted a
basic I/M program in accordance with the requirements of the Act. EPA
is approving the Tennessee SIP revision for revisions to the Davidson
County I/M program, as submitted on March 17, 1994, and for a basic I/M
program in Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson counties which
was submitted on July 8 and July 13, 1994.
Final Action
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse public comments. However, in a separate document in this
Federal Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP
revision should adverse or critical comment be filed. This action will
be effective September 26, 1995 unless, by August 28, 1995, adverse or
critical comments are received.
If EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn before
the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
discussed in a subsequent final rule based on the separate proposed
rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period for this
action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective September 26, 1995.
EPA is approving this revision to the Tennessee SIP for a basic I/M
program. The Agency has reviewed this request for revision of the
Federally-approved SIP for conformance with the provisions of the 1990
Amendments enacted on November 15, 1990. The Agency has determined that
this action conforms with those requirements.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607 (b)(1),
petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the
United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September
26, 1995. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for purposes
of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607 (b)(2).)
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866.
Nothing in this action shall be construed as permitting or allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for a revision to
any state
[[Page 38700]]
implementation plan. Each request for revision to the state
implementation plan shall be considered separately in light of specific
technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to
relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do not
create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the
State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval
does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does not have a
significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the
nature of the Federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation of
a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into
the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to
base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.
U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. section
7410(a)(2).
Under Sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan
revision, the State and any local or tribal governments have elected to
adopt the program provided for under Section 182 of the Clean Air Act.
These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments to perform
certain actions and also require the private sector to perform certain
duties. To the extent that the rules being approved by this action will
impose any mandate upon the State, local, or tribal governments either
as the owner or operator of a source or as a regulator, or would impose
any mandate upon the private sector, EPA's action will impose no new
requirements; such sources are already subject to these regulations
under State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
EPA has also determined that this final action does not include a
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private
sector.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 28, 1995.
Patrick M. Tobin,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart RR--Tennessee
2. Section 52.2220, is amended by adding paragraph (c)(126) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(126) Modifications to the existing basic I/M program in Davidson
County to implement an anti-tampering check, and to require testing of
vehicles from model year 1975 and newer, submitted on March 17, 1994.
Addition of a basic I/M program in the remainder of the middle
Tennessee ozone nonattainment area, submitted on July 8, 1994.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(a) Metropolitan Health Department Pollution Control Division
Regulation 8, approved by the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board on
March 9, 1994.
(b) Regulation 1200-3-29, effective on September 8, 1993.
(ii) Other material. None.
3. Section 52.2235 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2235 Control Strategy for Ozone.
* * * * *
(b) Nonregulatory provisions for the implementation of a basic I/M
program in Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties,
submitted on July 13, 1994, were approved by EPA on September 26, 1995.
[FR Doc. 95-18511 Filed 7-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P